Article
Impact is an Inclusive Goal- Part 2
Nobel Prize for pioneering work in developing a theory of radioactivity in 1903. It wasn’t until 1920 that she realized her own work was poisoning her and not until 1925 that her work with the French Academy of Medicine recommended the use of lead screens and periodic blood tests for workers in industrial labs where radioactive materials were prepared. As we gain knowledge, we learn how to hold it as well as navigate its procurement and utilization.
Radium, of course, had no agency or means of communication to tell Marie Curie it was poisoning her. Respondents can speak, and are often the ones who will feel the impact of any adverse effects brought about by a study. Yet with all the money, theory and hypothesis for research coming from the Western world, it’s easy for experimentation framing to miss the mark with ethical engagement.
Research participants have the answers, you just need to listen.
This has led to debate among social scientists on how to best conduct ethical research. A book chapter by Glennerster and Powers (2016) highlights how the widely used US Belmont Principles of ethical research apply to the particular challenges of experimental research in the Global South. Cronin-Furman & Lake (2018) take a step further and examine what research for equity would look like in relation to context research and suggest recommendations that have wide-ranging applicability for research in the Global South. Asiedu et al (2021) seek to ensure we are paying attention to these concerns with a call for more comprehensive reporting of ethical considerations in paper appendices.
Often glanced over, even in a conversation about creating an ethical environment for impactful results, are the voices of research participants. We have recently signed a consensus on dignity research statement as part of a consortium of researchers championing for more respectful research in the development space. We are working closely with the dignity project at IDinsight to create frameworks for conducting research in a respectful manner. At the heart of our proposed body of research will be empirical research into the preferences of those with the least power and voice in the system — the research participants themselves.
Participant perspectives
As a first step, we conducted a qualitative study to understand the experiences and preferences of our research participants. We did 20 in-depth interviews and a photovoice focus group discussion with 6 participants drawn from our low-income participant pool. Our research aimed understand:
- The perceptions of research participants regarding the respectfulness of Busara’s research processes.
- The preferences of participants concerning involvement in Busara’s research.
- How to improve participant experiences by aligning with their understandings and preferences in ways that make our research more respectful of their dignity.
We then analyzed the data we collected using thematic analysis, and the following key themes emerged, providing a comprehensive overview of participant perspectives:
- Participants want to be involved in research in meaningful ways — They perceive research to be of value if it helps to truthfully identify the gaps and challenges a given community faces. Research should also recommend actionable and sustainable solutions targeted at the most deserving populations within the community to be implemented by policymakers or development actors.
- Participants want researchers to share results — They feel a sense of satisfaction when participating in research and would love to tell community members what the research yielded.
- Participants want researchers to improve the process of consent — They need a clearer explanation of what to expect from each study. Unclear study procedures and sensitive questions were responsible for all reported negative experiences. Participants need researchers to take time and clearly explain any decision that may affect their participation in the research.
Ethics enable us to conduct our experimentation without causing unnecessary damage. When working in development and towards poverty alleviation, unethical research is not only dangerous, it can also compromise the quality of results. What’s more, we cannot do good in the world through research if we begin by doing harm. It is critical that we understand the linkages between the phenomena under study and the local context if we are to achieve meaningful development in the Global South. Unlike Marie Curie, we don’t need to wait until the damage has been done — we can always just ask.
This blog is part of Busara’s agenda to do research on research, or meta-research. This agenda seeks to identify problems in the behavioral science research process, especially as it happens in the Global South, and develop solutions to any problems we find. Currently, our meta-research agenda is focused on the topics of Culture, Research Ethics, and MEthods (CREME).
